2016-12-01 12:23 GMT+01:00 ‘Rupert Smith’ via Elm Discuss <
elm-discuss@googlegroups.com>:

Its not a solution I would reach for quickly, but decomposing record types
> and functions over them in this way does seem entirely permissable within
> the language.

It’s certainly doable/permissible in the language Elm, but it is strongly
discouraged by the designer of Elm. There have been several discussions
revolving around this in the past, on GitHub and the mailing list(s).
Search for something like “record nesting is better than record extension”
(that’s Evan’s claim). For example:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/elm-discuss/AaL8iLjhEdU/pBe29vQdCgAJ.
​

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Elm 
Discuss" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to elm-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to